but only if your "Entropic" character string isn't in a dictionary. Twelve characters in a dictionary is not the same as twelve non-word characters -- in any language. Dump a dictionary in English and then next four most used languages into your rainbow tables and you're still more successful than not.
The armchair experts of law enforcement come out again to deride a legitimate use of machinery for the protection of others, because oh no, camouflaged steel!
... so if one rolled up during an active shooter call, and parked it right outside a first-floor window to provide an armored cover for escaping people, you'd what, have a problem with that?
You're only problem is that the use cases are being cherry-picked from the news to make yourselves look good, because the most likely use case is the one I just showed you, and my bet is it never occurred to you.
Stop-and-frisk was awesome. If you feel targeted, it's probably because you look and act like a shitbird. You think NYC innovated this? Try that act in a small Southern town and you'll see stop-and-frisk in action for real. It's a logical and useful response to bullshit in the streets... alternate responses CLEARLY not forthcoming from second-guessers like yourselves.
You don't even live in the worlds you pass judgement upon.
Anti-cop website Techdirt flies same flag, as usual.
1) What you call a bad cop is likely a good cop with a bad set of circumstances. 2) Unless you have done the job or supported the job, your actual knowledge of how it works is insufficient to judge them. 3) Newark PD, to take a specific instance, should always be allowed to punch their non-compliant suspects. I live near Newark, worked in Newark, went to school in Newark. Newark PD is, if anything, too restrained with some of the walking crap that lives there. 4) If police don't deserve a union, that's fine. See who you can get to work that kind of job without protection from political interference and tell me how the crime rates are then.
It's nice that your world-view has sheltered many of you from what real urban life is. I'm happy that you have that. Please, though, don't apply your model to places like Newark, or NYC, or other large urban centers where you would be scared to live.
The bomb-sniffers will catch your explosive-laden devices. Having your cellphone on means the TSA can browse your phone's data. Turned off, they can't without powering it up and presumably bypassing your passcode.
AT&T had a choice: keep the local companies or keep long-distance. AT&T chose long-distance, because it was a revenue generating machine with no serious competition. I mean, who else is going to run caling from NYC to SF?
In retrospect AT&T chose poorly. The termination points are worth more than any transcontinental cabling or scheme, because you can ship all the bits you want between data centers, but it's the end users that pay the bills.
So, AT&T embarked on Project Angel, bought a cable provider (guess which one?), and did everythign they could to get back the last-mile. They failed miserably and ironically, were subsumed by one of their mutant offspring.
The last mile is critical infrastructure, I would argue, that should never be under the control of a company. We don't tolerate multiple electrical, gas, water, or sewer connections in our infrastructure, because it's rather silly. Why is data any different? I'll stop you right there -- it's not.
Municipal networks are the answer to this dilemma, and could work if you merely own the last mile, and allow *ANYONE* to offer transport or services to your citizens.
But... look at what the incumbents do to prevent it, and then relate that activity to Comcast.
It's always about the last mile. Keep that out of a company's hands, and let them compete on actual value.
Oh, you have press credentials? Great. You're still under arrest and oh, if you don't like how you've been arrested, we'd love your suggestions on how to improve. The job is stressful and we'll take humor where we can get it.
This is a highly hostile site for police. The lack of any insight into how police work actually happens often colors the articles. I can't really blame the authors if they don't know what police work really is, but in general, if you report the news, you should investigate all sides first.
If you're just writing editorials to make yourself look insightful, well, mission accomplished. Again.
99% of the cases filed are bullshit, so I'm not surprised they clear them that way. I just don't understand the desire to hamstring and cripple police work here. Officers aren't responding to filesharing emergencies, but real physical harm. The unreasonable expectation that they gently separate two combatants is ridiculous, but it seems that's the desire. When we get zero-point energy and force-fields, great, you can have that. Until then, arm officers with compliance-through-force and set the expectation that once an officer arrives on scene, compliance is not optional.